be in the FDA's focus, on that score, post a New England Journal of Medicine report.
So it makes reasonably good sense to keep all the similar (pancreatitis) incretin mimetic claims in one place, and handle the alleged cardiac risk claims elsewhere -- for efficiency. From the motions, then:
. . . .On September 13, 2013, Plaintiff Teresa Seufert filed Seufert v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., et al., Case No. 13-cv-2169 AJB (MDD). Although that complaint included claims against Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. that fall within the scope of claims assigned to MDL No. 2452, it also included claims against AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP and Bristol-Myers Squibb Company as to Onglyza. Plaintiffs subsequently filed Gaines, Lara, and McDaniel, which like Seufert, involved claims against the MDL Defendants that fall within the scope of claims assigned to MDL No. 2452 and also contained Onglyza claims. Onglyza claims were not part of the JPML Order creating MDL No. 2452. . . .
[Merck and the other] Defendants filed the Motion [to remand] on September 16, 2014. . . .
In the Motion, Defendants seek to separate the claims against Defendants from the Onglyza cases in which they are included as parties. . . . Plaintiffs do not. . . oppose this motion. . . .
So it will almost certainly be that the saxagliptin claims portions (a January 2011 backgrounder, under that link) of these cases, some of which allege elevated risks of cardiac related event side effects (claims not generally present in the MDL for incretin mimetics), will be left out of this main Southern California federal District MDL, by a subsequent order -- granting the motion. Enjoy your. . . hump day!